p 

hk5 



~r 



,,oRABY OF CONGRESS 



014 572 345 




ORIGIjST 



BIG MOUND OF ST. LOUIS, 



A nm UM) wmu m st. louis \m\m of srjENOL 



By prof, spencer SMITH. 



3 This remarkable feature in the topography of the city has 
disappeared : it succumbed to the irresistible spirit of the railroad. 
Cotton or any other commodity may, in the constantly changing 
course of human events, rise to the dignity of a financial king ; 
but its sway can never be so stern and unyielding as that of the 
"iron horse." Hill and valley, lake and river, must acknowledge 
his power ; the landscape bows before him, and yields implicit 
submission. 

A few months since the Directors of the North Missouri railroad 
were in need of a certain amount of earth to fill up and grade its 
track in the city. "The Big Mound" was the most available 
bank, and had it been historically as valuable as one of the 
P3^ramids of Egypt, it would probably have been sacrificed. 

I first saw this mound in 1843. It was then in a perfect state, 
with the exception of changes incident to time and weather. 

In 1844, a small house of refreshment was built on the top of it. 
In building this house, the summit of the Mound was leveled 
down a very little, probably not more than two feet. Thi- 
enterprise did not succeed, and in a few years tlie building was 
removed. Some time after, streets were cut through the northern 



*?>,> 



and southern ends of the Mound ; but its actual hight was not 
affected till the leveling process of the railroad commenced. 

The Big Mound was one of the most prominent features in the 
landscape, and attracted the attention of the earl}^ settlers of St. 
Louis. In primitive surveys, it was made a standard landmark 
under the name of "La Grange de Terre." Subsequently, its 
exact location became a point in a lawsuit growing out of these 
earlier transactions. 

An}^ description, however, in feet and inches fails in giving an 
idea of its appearance. To speak in general terms, it was about 
four hundred feet long and two hundred wide at its base ; but 
these figures are necessarily not precise, because it is very dillicult 
to say where (admitting that a part of it was artificial) the natural 
portion ended and the artificial began. 

Before any earth had been removed from the top so as to afiect 
the hight of the Mound, I measured it with a theodolite, and found 
it fift3^-three feet above the sidewalk on Broadway. The direction 
of the major axis was nearly north and south. The name given 
(" Grange dc Terre ") by the jcarly French settlers was not inap- 
propriate. If we assume as a model the old-fashioned New 
England barn, the north end would have to be hipped to a long 
slant and the south merely rounded ofT as abruptly as possible, to 
complete the resemblance. 

The slant on the eastern side was much steeper than on the 

Western; and the Hon. James H. Lucas informed me that in the 

earliest times this eastern side was beautifully terraced, while the 

western was comparatively smooth. The highest point was about 

one-third of the length from the south end. 

Fine photographs of the Mound, both of the eastern and western 
sides, have been taken b}^ Mr. G. Farrington, photographer. 
These give, at a glance, a definite idea of the shape of the Mound, 
which it is impossible to accomplish in words. These pictures 
will be valuable as theonly existing representatives of w^hat was 
once a remarkable feature in the topography of St. Louis, and 
from which it received its cognomen of the "Mound City." 

But the Big Mound has passed away ; its site is now level with 
the street. It was dug down, and removed by wagon-loads, and 
all surmises as to what might be hidden in this vast heap of earth 






are set at rest. Not so, however, with specukitions with regard to 
it. How, by whom, and when it was built, or whether built at all, 
are still mooted questions. This last point is the one which we 
now propose to examine. 

The remarkable earth-works in Ohio were discovered and 
described many years before the " Big Mound " had attracted the 
attention of antiquarians. The preconceived ideas of these gen- 
tlemen regarding it, resulting from their observations of the 
aforesaid earth-works, led them too hastily, as I think, to place 
this and most of the mounds in the Mississippi Valley in the same 
category. 

It is a well-established principle, both in scientific and antiqua- 
rian researches, not to ascribe an extraordinary cause when an 
ordinary one may be found which will answer all the conditions 
of the question. Now^ the first and most obvious conclusion 
with regard to any hill is, that it is a natural elevation. If on 
examination, however, we find proof that this conclusion is incor- 
rect, and that there are evidences of human design, we must 
necessarily make up our opinion upon these evidences. To 
assume, then, that because their are earth-works in Ohio, that this 
is an artificial mound, and that, too, before we have examined 
into the arguments for or against human agency, seems mere 
assiunption. Yet, so strong was this conviction in the minds of 
m;iny, that it was — nay, I may say, is a sort of heresy to assert 
the contrary. 

More tlian twenty years ago I was convinced, from personal 
observation, that the "Big Mound" was a natural mound, and owed 
its elevation to natural causes ; and the following were my reasons, 
which its demolition hag but served to strengthen and confirm : 

I. If it w-as artificial, there must have been desi<rn in buildin<r 
it. It would puzzle the most imaginative antiquarian to find a 
motive powerful enough to induce a nation to expend so much 
lalior as must have been required to heap up this vast mound of 
earth, without a more manifest design than is here apparent. As 
a point of look-out, it did not command a wide extent of country. 
As a fortification, it was worse than useless. There are many 
other elevations in the vicinity which, so far as we can see, were 
much more available. 



2. There is no proof that it was a place of sacrilice. No 
charred remains of either bones or wood have been found. True, 
some bones and a few Indian ornaments have been exhumed ; but 
their position gave no evidence of design in placing them there, 
other than that of ordinary burial as practiced among Indians at 
the present day. All that have been found, either of bones or 
trinkets, were superiicially buried ; indeed, some bodies even have 
been buried in the mound within the memory of men now living. 

Exaggerated stories have frequentl}' floated about from mouth 
to mouth, and from newspaper to newspaper ; but in every 
instance in which I have taken pains to ascertain the real facts, I 
have found that they did not warrant the conclusions drawn from 
them. As a sample, I give one of the most recent origin. While 
the Mound was disappearing imder the shovel of the laborer, it 
was reported that a large quantity of perforated bone discs* had 
been discovered twenty-five feet below the top of the Mound. 1 
inquired of Dr. Briggs, who found them, and he told me that 
they lay about four feet below the surface. Instances have also 
been quoted of skeletons being found twenty and thirty feet below 
the top. But it must be recollected with regard to this last state- 
ment, that it was made after the crest of the Mound had been dug 
away, and a little deviation from the exact line would make a 
great difference in the actual depth below the surface. 

3. Of the bones exhumed, none seem to date further back 
than a few years subsequent to the foundation of the city. I have 
in my cabinet a few bones which were dug up at the corner of 
Fourth and Market streets, in 1845. This locality is well known 
as having been the first Potter's lield used by the early settlers ; 
and the bones I speak of show evidences of as great antiquity as 
those found in the Mound. Indeed, nothing that I have seen, 
which was found in the "Big Mound," has the appearance of 
dating further back than the time of the Indians cotemporary with 
the settlement of the country by the whites. 

4. If such an immense heap of earth was piled up by human 
labor, the workmen must have had tools of some kind ; but no 

*The perforated discs referred to were found mostly towai'ds the northern end. 
They were made of .shells, probably some species of unio, and the holes were 
evidently drilled by the process described by Dr. Charles Ran in his article on 
••Drilling Without Metal." 



remains of such have ever been found, either in the "Big Mound" 
or its vicinity. 

5. It has been said that the "Big Mound" must be artificial, 
because so many things have been found in it. Instead of so 
many, the wonder is that so few were brouglit to hght when it was 
dug down and carted off. No pieces of pottery ; no remains 
pointing to the agency of fire ; no remarkable specimens of Indian 
ornaments or implements, except a few arrow heads common 
wherever the aborigines roamed. Nothing, indeed, more than 
has been found in thousands of Indian graves in similar localities 
elsewhere. Apparent exceptions to this are the perforated bone or 
shell discs, which have been taken out in considerable quantities ; 
but these are still made and used by the Indians of New Mexico. 
A few other things of comparatively modern origin have also been 
found. Especially worthy of attention are two pieces of beaten 
copper, which I have heard of. I made application to the possessor 
of these relics to be allowed to copy them, but was refused, except 
upon conditions with which I could not comply. I am informed, 
however, by those who have been more fortunate than myself, 
that they present no novel features. They are simply plates of 
copper rudely hammered out, probably by the Indians of the 
Lake Superior district. I acknowledge that I was somewhat 
disappointed in not being allowed a sight of these precious (?) 
relics ; but the feeling was somewhat mitigated when I found they 
were nothing uncommon. Thus, the "Big Mound" proved to be 
exceedingly meagre in antiquities. 

6. If the remains of this mound are evidences of its artificial 
ciiaracter, then much stronger ones can be found in favor of a 
similar origin for the Blufls of the Mississippi and Illinois. The 
fact that the "Big Mound" was terraced on the eastern side proves 
nothing ; for equally as curious and regular terraces may be found 
on almost any large water-course in the West flowing through 
similar soil. Evidently, then, if we would establish any proof 
that this Mound was artificial, we must bring forward better 
evidence than any found in it. 

\.{^ then, we are not satisfied that the " Big Mound " was 
artificial, why not take the position that it was a natural formation, 
and examine the evidences? I think we shall find them more 



satisfactory than any which have been adduced to prove it a work 
of human agency. 

The "Big Mound," then, was only one of the thousands scat- 
tered through the valley of the Mississippi. A great variety of 
Indian trinkets has been found in them, but nothing pointing to 
people of an earlier race than the Indians whom Laclede traded 
with and Hennepin taught. This would suggest the idea that the 
Indians found this mound ready made to their hands, and buried 
their dead in it, just as we know^ tJit^y did in other high places. 

Antiquarians who examined it in early times, before any exca- 
vations had been made, believed it all artificial from the level of 
the present street to the top ; but a cut which was made several 
years ago revealed a foundation of clay reaching about two-thirds 
of the way to the top. 

Above this, then, thought they, was the real commencement of 
the artificial portion of the Mound. It is true that above the clay 
region the soil changed — became sandy and of finer grain towards 
the top, till it became so much like the sediment that is thrown out 
of the Reservoir that it is difficult to tell the difference. Later 
excavations, hov/ever, showed that this clay stratum was not the 
foundation of the INIound, but that it was underlaid by a stratum 
of clean river sand. Above this sand, on the eastern side, a clay 
for making brick is still dug up, somewhat lighter in color than 
that which is found in other parts of the city used for the same 
purpose. 

On the northern and eastern sides of the Mound, where the 
perpendicular cut was higher than elsewhere, a great variety of 
strata was found. Above the red clay there was a layer of fine 
sand, and then a layer about an inch thick of brownish, adhesive 
clay ; then about two feet of sand, and then another of clay also 
an inch thick. This order of position is often found in the banks 
of the river. These strata were all parallel and horizontal. 

If the Mound had been artificial, it would have been almost 
impossibly to preserve the line of demarcation between the layers 
so exactly horizontal and straight as these were. The earth-works 
in Ohio present curved lines, as might have been expected. 

Proceeding towards the top, the strata were thicker and the 
material finer, until an almost impalpable sand was reached, very 



like the sediment now found in the reservoir of the city water- 
works, and wherever the Missouri water settles. Another circum- 
stance in support of the hypothesis that it is a river deposit, is the 
fact that it had, when I first saw it, twenty-five years ago, the 
same shape as nearly all the sand-bars in the river, being lowest 
in the direction of the river, and having its steepest side down 
stream, extending up stream, with a long, gradual slant. This, 
too, is the general shape of the immense mounds found in Vernon 
and the adjoining counties. There is a group of mounds not far 
from Nevada City, in Vernon county, called "Karnes' Mounds," 
which have the same external characteristics as the mounds in the 
vicinit}' of St. Louis. But these are so large as to preclude the 
idea that all the Indians or other nations that ever lived within a 
thousand niiles could have built them, even with the aid of 
'' Diodcrn improvaiicvts.''' 

There is, also, along the valley of the Platte, a great number of 
mounds, all having the same general features as those alread}' 
spoken of, and, like them, containing Indian graves. Further, as 
to these relics found in Indian graves, or in the mounds, if these 
relics prove anything, they prove too much ; for the}^ prove that 
the Indians built the mounds, and that, too, at a comparatively 
modern date ; the}'' prove that the Indians were capable of works 
which, considering the difierence in knowledge and appliances, 
were greater than the Erie canal. 

Now, in view of these fiicts, and there are many more which 
have not been cited, is it not far more probable that the "Big 
Mound'' was a natural formation, than that it was the work of an}' 
primeval nation, who here expended years of labor without, so far 
as we can see, any design? 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 572 345 « 



